194 So. 3d 1246
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Ronald A. Ferrari purchased property described as two contiguous lots (Lot 21-A with building, municipal address 1837-39/1839 Bienville St., and Lot 22-B vacant, municipal address 1835 Bienville St.) in 2006 and thereafter paid no taxes or performed no work.
- The City issued an administrative judgment declaring blight for “1839 Bienville… Lot 21” on December 11, 2011; that judgment did not expressly reference Lot 22-B.
- NOLA Renewal Group filed an affidavit of intent to possess and later an affidavit of possession identifying the property primarily as 1839 Bienville St./Lot 21, recorded mortgage certificates included fuller legal descriptions, and NOLA posted and mailed the statutorily required notices.
- NOLA rehabilitated the property, obtained a certificate of occupancy on April 15, 2013, and paid ad valorem taxes; Ferrari filed a petitory action asserting NOLA failed to comply with La. R.S. 9:5633 and could not acquire Lot 22-B.
- The trial court initially awarded NOLA ownership of both lots, then on motion for new trial denied acquisition of Lot 22-B and recognized Ferrari’s 99% interest in Lot 22-B; the appellate court affirmed as to Lot 21-A, reversed as to Lot 22-B, and remanded to determine remediation reimbursement to NOLA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NOLA acquired Lot 21-A by acquisitive prescription under La. R.S. 9:5633 | Ferrari: statutory identification/notice defects and untimely tax payments prevented acquisition | NOLA: satisfied the statute (short description, mortgage certificate, notices, taxes paid, rehabilitation, occupancy certificate) | Court: NOLA satisfied §9:5633 for Lot 21-A; acquisition affirmed |
| Whether NOLA acquired Lot 22-B by acquisitive prescription under La. R.S. 9:5633 | Ferrari: Lot 22-B was not included in City blight judgment nor in NOLA’s affidavits/notice, so prescription cannot run | NOLA: lot was within same fenced parcel, mortgage certificate and conduct put owner on notice; statute met | Court: Trial court correctly found no declaration of blight for Lot 22-B; NOLA did not acquire Lot 22-B |
| Whether NOLA is entitled to reimbursement for remediation of Lot 22-B under La. R.S. 9:5633(E) | Ferrari: (implied) no reimbursement because no acquisition | NOLA: seeks reimbursement for costs and enhanced value from remediation | Court: Issue unresolved on record; remanded to trial court to determine amount due NOLA |
Key Cases Cited
- Mouledoux v. Skipper, 104 So.3d 585 (La. Ct. App. 2012) (La. R.S. 9:5633 requires strict compliance)
- Pollard v. Schiff, 161 So.3d 48 (La. Ct. App. 2015) (appellate standard for reviewing factual findings; manifest error/clearly wrong framework)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (standard for appellate review of factual determinations)
- Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120 (La. 1987) (two-part test for reversing factfinder’s determinations)
- Syrie v. Schilhab, 693 So.2d 1173 (La. 1997) (clarifies role of appellate court vs factfinder on credibility and inferences)